War with Iran inevitable: do you support Iran's right to self-defence? - Page 3

NeoCon John Bolton announced recently that he "supported a preemptive strike" against Iran by Israel, presumably on an unproven charge that "Iran is developing nuclear weapons". Does it not follow that he would support the right by Iran to launch a preemptive strike against Israel, on the known fact that they are in possession of nuclear weapons, and have a track record of "striking first"?

We the public deserve an honest complete review of the facts with scientific interpretation and implications as to what really happened on 9/11. Bill Binney, Former senior technical director, NSA.

Ok, sheep must be prepped and victims must be demonized (dehumanized) - I understand that - but this is utterly ridiculous.

In fact it is something of a masterpiece...first you have a headline:

Iran issues Israel attack warning

Which obviously is crafted to reinforce the implanted views and opinions of those with an existing anti-Iran bias or other conditioned fear.

But when you actually read on you find the case is not so:

Quote:

Iran has drawn up plans to bomb Israel if it launches an attack on Iranian soil first, military officials say.

The deputy commander of Iran's air force said that in the "unlikely event" of an Israeli attack, Tehran could respond with air and missile raids.

What???!!! An Air Force General has drawn up plans to respond to an attack????

Bastard Scumbags!!!!

Of course one subtext is that this is BAD because someone is threatening Israel No matter that the context was prefixed with an IF Israel were to launch an unprovoked murderous attack.

The other subtext would be to reprogram the winger drone army - a bit like with the 'wiped off the map' meme which was so successful in by passing what passes for the atrophied critical faculties of the average wingnut - to repeat this like a demented parrot on speed at all and every occasion, appropriate or not.

I can hear it now:

Iran threatened Israel with missiles, threatened Israel with missiles, threatened Israel with missiles, we must kill, we must kill.....

In fact, all 'evidence' used to kill anyone at all from Saddam, Iraqis and now Iranians has been drilled into the monstrous winger regiment in just this manner...

It doesn't have to be true - they are incapable of analyzing it to see whether it is or not anyway - it just needs repeating; and repeating, and repeating, and repeating, and repeating.

What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad

I just noticed something peculiar looking at that map. The two biggest neighbors of Iraq have opposite views: Saudi Arabia supports the US, while Iran sabotages them - but the big power shift in Iraq due to the invasion is from Sunni->Shia. It seems like Saudi Arabia should be the one upset and Iran be the one dancing in the streets, Iran should be trying to help get things stable (with the Shia on top) in Iraq...

I just noticed something peculiar looking at that map. The two biggest neighbors of Iraq have opposite views: Saudi Arabia supports the US, while Iran sabotages them - but the big power shift in Iraq due to the invasion is from Sunni->Shia. It seems like Saudi Arabia should be the one upset and Iran be the one dancing in the streets, Iran should be trying to help get things stable (with the Shia on top) in Iraq...

Saudi Arabia ARE upset - why do you think the US are trying to bomb Iran?

What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad

I think the US will attack Iran no matter what before year's end, because then the IAEA could conclude that Iran was and is not developing nukes and close the Iran-file.
So the war has to be started before Iran gets rehabilitated.

But the US has lost any public or congress-support and has lost the willingness to use groundforces against Iran. What remains is a big airstrike-campaign, prepared by US and/or british special forces, that are probably already in Iran, that have the goal to locate and mark targets.

The airstrike-campaign would be aimed at destroying all nuclear facilities and all of Iran's military capabilities and communication-centers, in order to make a direct military retaliation impossible.

Bush can order that airstrike-campaign without asking the congress, since US-presidents can lead wars for 90 days without asking.

Given that information, if I were Iran, I would attack the US' military in Iraq, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia and the navy-fleet first, quick, decisively and surprisingly, instead of sitting like a duck there and waiting for the US to bomb Iran back into stone-age.
Iran could even the new bush-israel-terminology and call the strike a preemptive selfdefense-strike.

About a hundred well aimed advanced rockets could do the job. Iran would have then to march in Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Afghanistan with groundforces in order to prevent a replenishing of US-forces and to block the sea routes with its navy-fleet.

Israel would be a problem, which would try to send out its airforce to bomb Iran, but luckily Iran prepared for that and delivered advanced anti-aircraft-rockets to Hezbollah that could serve as a shield or at least as a retaliation-asset that could deter Israel from action.

The US would cry foul and persuade the world-community that Iran has shown now its true evil face and the UN-SC would probably endorse a concerted military action to drive Iran back and the US would make sure that Iran gets bombed back to stone-age, so that really Iran has no real option to win and enjoy the victory, but at least it would have shown a good fight and severely hurt the US' military and its image of being unbeatable on the battlefield.

Nightcrawler

I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?

Given that information, if I were Iran, I would attack the US' military in Iraq, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia and the navy-fleet first, quick, decisively and surprisingly, instead of sitting like a duck there and waiting for the US to bomb Iran back into stone-age.

Or they could stop hiding being horses asses and kill their bomb program. If they were open and honest, it would not take that long to figure out that things were going well enough that the world could feel safe about them.

I think that the Iranians would do a lot better with me as their leader than you as their leader. I would integrate Iran into the western world, you would lead them to their deaths.

Or they could stop hiding being horses asses and kill their bomb program. If they were open and honest, it would not take that long to figure out that things were going well enough that the world could feel safe about them.

I think that the Iranians would do a lot better with me as their leader than you as their leader. I would integrate Iran into the western world, you would lead them to their deaths.

You can't kill a bomb-program that isn't there. As to the open and honest-approach, that is what Iran is trying right now: Iran and the IAEA have agreed on a thorough investigation-procedure, and the IAEA has confirmed that at year's end it will be able to say whether Iran's nuclear programme is of civilian or military nature.

Has that calmed the situation? No, it has led the US to beat the drums of war even stronger.

So the only conclusion from that is that the US wants to attack before the IAEA rehabilitates Iran, which means that Iran has no option to prevent it being bombed back to stone-age, but at least it still has the option to strike the US' military and navy in the middle-east first and severely, before it is unable to do anything.

The reason for the invariance of the eventual outcome is that the US can't be satisfied by anything short of selfinflicted regime-change towards a secular government.

Nightcrawler

I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?

I think the US will attack Iran no matter what before year's end, because then the IAEA could conclude that Iran was and is not developing nukes and close the Iran-file.
So the war has to be started before Iran gets rehabilitated.

But the US has lost any public or congress-support and has lost the willingness to use groundforces against Iran. What remains is a big airstrike-campaign, prepared by US and/or british special forces, that are probably already in Iran, that have the goal to locate and mark targets.

The airstrike-campaign would be aimed at destroying all nuclear facilities and all of Iran's military capabilities and communication-centers, in order to make a direct military retaliation impossible.

Bush can order that airstrike-campaign without asking the congress, since US-presidents can lead wars for 90 days without asking.

Given that information, if I were Iran, I would attack the US' military in Iraq, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia and the navy-fleet first, quick, decisively and surprisingly, instead of sitting like a duck there and waiting for the US to bomb Iran back into stone-age.
Iran could even the new bush-israel-terminology and call the strike a preemptive selfdefense-strike.

About a hundred well aimed advanced rockets could do the job. Iran would have then to march in Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Afghanistan with groundforces in order to prevent a replenishing of US-forces and to block the sea routes with its navy-fleet.

Israel would be a problem, which would try to send out its airforce to bomb Iran, but luckily Iran prepared for that and delivered advanced anti-aircraft-rockets to Hezbollah that could serve as a shield or at least as a retaliation-asset that could deter Israel from action.

The US would cry foul and persuade the world-community that Iran has shown now its true evil face and the UN-SC would probably endorse a concerted military action to drive Iran back and the US would make sure that Iran gets bombed back to stone-age, so that really Iran has no real option to win and enjoy the victory, but at least it would have shown a good fight and severely hurt the US' military and its image of being unbeatable on the battlefield.

Nightcrawler

[CENTER]
... ready to RUMBLE! [/CENTER]

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!

You can't kill a bomb-program that isn't there. As to the open and honest-approach, that is what Iran is trying right now: Iran and the IAEA have agreed on a thorough investigation-procedure, and the IAEA has confirmed that at year's end it will be able to say whether Iran's nuclear programme is of civilian or military nature.

Has that calmed the situation? No, it has led the US to beat the drums of war even stronger.

So the only conclusion from that is that the US wants to attack before the IAEA rehabilitates Iran, which means that Iran has no option to prevent it being bombed back to stone-age, but at least it still has the option to strike the US' military and navy in the middle-east first and severely, before it is unable to do anything.

The reason for the invariance of the eventual outcome is that the US can't be satisfied by anything short of selfinflicted regime-change towards a secular government.

Nightcrawler

You think that the attack will occur before the end of the year? It seems to me that any attack plans that are being made are preparation for a springtime war (i.e. after the stuff you posted either works or does not work).

About a hundred well aimed advanced rockets could do the job. Iran would have then to march in Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Afghanistan with groundforces in order to prevent a replenishing of US-forces and to block the sea routes with its navy-fleet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by segovius

And then when the killing starts it's live on Fox ands all the wingnuts send out for pizza and have war-parties or whatever they do...

You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James LovelockThe Story of Stuff

So you're wary of an attack because of the chance they would retaliate? Not because it might not be the right thing to do in the first place? That innocent Iranian families might die? Isn't that something you should consider?

Well, it's one of my prime concerns. I of course don't want to see innocent people die...that is always a concern. The biggest reason is whether or not it's the most effective way to deal with this guy and his government. I don't know if the ends will be better than if we use other means.

Quote:

Agreed.

Agreed. But what do you think about ground forces?

1. Sorry, yes...hurt was left out.
2. I would not want to see ground forces occupy Iran. We don't have the people to do it anyway.

Quote:

There will be no "retaliation" from "nuke" facilities.

Not sure why you thought I meant that there would be. We want to take out their nuclear capability AND ability to retaliate. I thought that was clear.

Quote:

Hey! We're making progress!!!! You actually care "what it would look like". This tends to indicate you're not happy with what Iraq "looks like". Well done.

You're just being silly.

Quote:

Hey arent you one of those who thinks the UN is "useless" and a "farce" and "corrupt" etc.? If this is how you feel about the UN, then why do you think Iran whould listen to them? After all, Israel definitely "makes a habit of giving them the finger".

I think it's useless because it enforces nothing and doesn't follow through on its threats. I would like to see it actually function. And Israel is another matter. They are not the ones threatening to wipe Iran off the map and saying it "cannot continue to exist."

Quote:

I guess we're all insane. I think it's infinitely unlikely that Iran is developing nuclear technology for purposes of agression[sic].

My grammar error...your grammar error. Seriously...thanks...I saw that when I re-read. Leaving out a word and using the wrong form of "they're." Must have been dead tired. Anywho....

You mean to tell me that you're SURE or even NEARLY POSITIVE Iran is not developing nuclear weapons? Seriously?

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

I've never come out for it. I have said it may come to that. We may have to. It's not that I'm actively for it at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by e1618978

I advocated an attack on Iran just yesterday.

My reasoning is as follows:

- I think that the Iranian leadership seems to not be thinking clearly, there is no way
that a rational leader would deliberately try to piss off the rest of the world, and no
way that a rational leader would actively try to encourage civil war in their neighboring
countires. We need to remove that leadership before they have a nuclear weapon.

- We are already effectively at war with them already, via proxy forces in Iraq, Syria,
and Lebanon.

Now, back in 2003 they were willing to deal and GWB totally screwed things up by ignoring
them - if they were willing to re-iterate that same deal now I think we would take it, but
otherwise bombing them is a good first step.

I also think that we should split up Iraq, take the Kurdish parts of Iran and give them Southern Iraq.
The new Kurdistan we create out of Northern Iraq and Kurdish Iran would be a good ally and a base
for US forces, and Iran would have its hands full bringing order to a place that it helped mess up.
Syria can have central Iraq, with its no oil and tons of problems.

Some good points. I just think that we shouldn't do it unless all other options have failed. The problem is by then Iran may have stalled enough to develop the bomb. I have to believe that before we attack them, we'd sit down behind closed doors and say "we don't want to do this, but we're sure as fuck going to if you don't open up your program and start obeying the international community.

In other words, we need to apply leverage. We need to say to them....you have two choices. Change your ways and accept normalized relations with the US and the international community...or keep supporting terror and maintaining a closed door nuke program that might be for weapons and we bomb the fuck out of you next year. Your choice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sammi jo

Launching an invasion of Iran by taking out its military facilities will result in the fragmentation and collapse of Iran's military, (and the destablization of its government). From an orderly and disciplined army (navy and airforce) with a well-established chain of command will emerge multiple guerilla-styled units, with no shortage of weapons. Civil war is one possible outcome. The generation of terrorist cells (determined to attack the US either anywhere here at home, or US targets overseas), is probably the most likely outcome. This won't be an instantaneous reaction. People in the M.E. have longer attention spans than here in the West... they will be remembering this well after we've forgotten about 9/11... as will be the case with Iraq.

I'd be more concerned about pre-planned terror attacks launched if we bomb them. I doubt these well armed guerillas would make it to the US or Europe, but they could cause havoc in Iraq and Iran...I agree with that.

Quote:

This is more fodder for "justifying" the continuation of the "war on terror", by claiming Iran is supporting terrorists in Iraq,

Now you're overboard. They are supporting terror and fighters in Iraq.

Quote:

then invading that country for that reason (amongst others, such as the unsubstantiated claims of nuclear weapon building)..

I haven't heard anyone claim they are building weapons for sure. We've said that we're worried about it and we think they are.

Quote:

and thus creating legions of angry ex-military people, and its inevitable result... more terror. The driving force for all the BS in the last 6 years, is US deference to Israel.

Do you mean ex-US military or ex-Iranian military? Not sure of your point there.

As for US deference, well your anti-Israeli rants are well known here. That is not the reason we are attacked. We've been getting attacked since at least 1983. And if we really deferred to Israel, wed have set them lose in 1991 and let them nuke Baghdad for launching scuds at them. They defer to us, actually.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Iran demanded that United Nations inspectors visit Israel to investigate its nuclear capability while Israel accused Tehran of lying in a bitter debate at an assembly of the UN atomic watchdog in Vienna on Friday.

United Nations officials at a 149-nation meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna said they had no memory of the two rival nations ever engaging each other directly at previous meetings.

The debate was sought by Arab and Islamic states after they shelved a resolution to brand Israel an atomic "threat" in the face of a likely Western maneuver to block a floor vote.
\tAdvertisement
Israel is widely assumed to have the Middle East's only atomic arsenal, though it has never confirmed or denied this. It is also one of just three states to shun the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, along with India and Pakistan.

Ah, but Israel is not subject to the same international law that every other nation is. Obviously the UN would never even consider inspecting Israel. That's like the kitchen maid demanding that she inspect the kings private quarters.

Everyone knows Israel has nuclear capability. It was proven when Mordechai Vanunu showed actual pictures. Guess where Mordecai is now? In Israeli prison. They kidnapped his ass out of Europe, a violation of international law, tried him and locked him up for good. He got out on parole, but it was a sham because the rules for him to remain free were ridiculous. He got sent back to jail within a short period of time.

Ah, but Israel is not subject to the same international law that every other nation is. Obviously the UN would never even consider inspecting Israel. That's like the kitchen maid demanding that she inspect the kings private quarters.

Everyone knows Israel has nuclear capability. It was proven when Mordechai Vanunu showed actual pictures. Guess where Mordecai is now? In Israeli prison. They kidnapped his ass out of Europe, a violation of international law, tried him and locked him up for good. He got out on parole, but it was a sham because the rules for him to remain free were ridiculous. He got sent back to jail within a short period of time.

Ah, but Israel is not subject to the same international law that every other nation is. Obviously the UN would never even consider inspecting Israel. That's like the kitchen maid demanding that she inspect the kings private quarters.

Everyone knows Israel has nuclear capability. It was proven when Mordechai Vanunu showed actual pictures. Guess where Mordecai is now? In Israeli prison. They kidnapped his ass out of Europe, a violation of international law, tried him and locked him up for good. He got out on parole, but it was a sham because the rules for him to remain free were ridiculous. He got sent back to jail within a short period of time.

In the early sixties of last century, the US was very worried that Israel might develop nukes. The CIA delivered enough informations that that was the case and so Kennedy who was president back then forced Israel to accept american inspectors. Begrudingly, not wanting to lose the US as ally, Israel allowed the inspectors in but prohibitted them from bringing with them instruments to measure radioactivity, and when they searched the reactors and labors, they were called "this door not!" and numerous other tactics were used to make the inspections worthless, much the same as Saddam Hussein did in the 90's with the UN-inspectors.

The US-inspectors reported back that dishonest activity by Israel, and Kennedy became angry, threatening Israel that if they wouldn't fully cooperate with the inspections (Kennedy then forced Israel to accept inspections every 6 months), that the US would cut down its support for Israel, financially and military.

Shortly thereafter Kennedy got assassinated (hint, hint) and Johnson became president, who conveniently didn't insist on the every-6 months-inspection-tours anymore and of course didn't threaten with any consequences and on his watch Israel achieved to get its nukes.

Nightcrawler

I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?

In the early sixties of last century, the US was very worried that Israel might develop nukes. The CIA delivered enough informations that that was the case and so Kennedy who was president back then forced Israel to accept american inspectors. Begrudingly, not wanting to lose the US as ally, Israel allowed the inspectors in but prohibitted them from bringing with them instruments to measure radioactivity, and when they searched the reactors and labors, they were called "this door not!" and numerous other tactics were used to make the inspections worthless, much the same as Saddam Hussein did in the 90's with the UN-inspectors.

The US-inspectors reported back that dishonest activity by Israel, and Kennedy became angry, threatening Israel that if they wouldn't fully cooperate with the inspections (Kennedy then forced Israel to accept inspections every 6 months), that the US would cut down its support for Israel, financially and military.

Shortly thereafter Kennedy got assassinated (hint, hint) and Johnson became president, who conveniently didn't insist on the every-6 months-inspection-tours anymore and of course didn't threaten with any consequences and on his watch Israel achieved to get its nukes.

Nightcrawler

DUDE! I think you just invented a new law...the cousin of Godwin's Law. We now have Nightcrawler's Law!

Quote:

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison or reference to the Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory(s) approaches one.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

DUDE! I think you just invented a new law...the cousin of Godwin's Law. We now have Nightcrawler's Law!

The Kennedy assassination was almost 44 years ago, and people are still talking about it especially in terms of doubting/debating the Warren Commission's report as regards the lone gunman/magic bullet theory. Whether the Warren Commission was a fair investigation depends upon who one talks to, and which books, documents, etc you read. Some people say the Warren Commission was complete and thorough, while others maintain the WC cherrypicked the facts that pointed towards Oswald's guilt, and sidelined those that did not. Of course, we all know that in the US, two or more people never, ever plan or carry out a crime, because when two or more are involved, it means "conspiracy", and conspiracies only happen in fevered minds.

We the public deserve an honest complete review of the facts with scientific interpretation and implications as to what really happened on 9/11. Bill Binney, Former senior technical director, NSA.

The Kennedy assassination was almost 44 years ago, and people are still talking about it especially in terms of doubting/debating the Warren Commission's report as regards the lone gunman/magic bullet theory. Whether the Warren Commission was a fair investigation depends upon who one talks to, and which books, documents, etc you read. Some people say the Warren Commission was complete and thorough, while others maintain the WC cherrypicked the facts that pointed towards Oswald's guilt, and sidelined those that did not. Of course, we all know that in the US, two or more people never, ever plan or carry out a crime, because when two or more are involved, it means "conspiracy", and conspiracies only happen in fevered minds.

sammi, you are one huge buzzkill. You really are.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

I know that there is nothing that 'President Tom' could say that would still the drums (dogs?) of war - and he makes some very good points in his interview about Israel and Iran's nuclear ambitions, all in the face of a rabid right-wing propagandist in the 'journalists' chair - but he is a master of the western media.

He opens himself to any question whatsoever with no restrictions and talks to the US media for hours on any subject with no qualifications, and in English! Hell, even Bush would never do that!

But his thoughts are very interesting and he makes some excellent and intelligent points. I like the handling of the (disgraceful and biased) pro-Bush line which was a masterpiece:

Quote:

PELLEY: What trait do you admire in President Bush?

AHMADINEJAD: Again, I have a very frank tone. I think that President Bush needs to correct his ways.

PELLEY: What do you admire about him?

AHMADEINEJAD: He should respect the American people.

PELLEY: Is there anything? Any trait?

AHMADINEJAD: As an American citizen, tell me what trait do you admire?

PELLEY: Well, Mr. Bush is, without question, a very religious man, for example, as you are. I wonder if there's anything that you've seen in President Bush that you admire.

AHMADEINEJAD: Well, is Mr. Bush a religious man?

PELLEY: Very much so. As you are.

AHMADEINEJAD: What religion, please tell me, tells you as a follower of that religion to occupy another country and kill its people? Please tell me. Does Christianity tell its followers to do that? Judaism, for that matter? Islam, for that matter?

What prophet tells you to send 160,000 troops to another country, kill men, women, and children? You just can't wear your religion on your sleeve or just go to church. You should be truthfully religious. Religion tells us all that you should respect the property, the life of different people. Respect human rights. Love your fellow man. And once you hear that a person has been killed, you should be saddened. You shouldn't sit in a room, a dark room, and hatch plots. And because of your plots, many thousands of people are killed.

Having said that, we respect the American people. And because of our respect for the American people, we respectfully talk with President Bush. We have a respectful tone. But having said that, I don't think that that is a good definition of religion. Religion is love for your fellow man, brotherhood, telling the truth.

PELLEY: I take it you can't think of anything you like about President Bush.

AHMADEINEJAD: Well, I'm not familiar with the gentleman's private life. Maybe in his private life he is very kind or a determined man. I'm not aware of that. I base my judgment on what I see in his public life. Having said that, I think that President Bush can behave much better. There were golden opportunities for President Bush. He should have used them better.

PELLEY: I asked President Bush what he would say to you if he were sitting in this chair. And he told me, quote, speaking to you, that you've made terrible choices for your people. You've isolated your nation. You've taken a nation of proud and honorable people and made your country the pariah of the world. These are President Bush's words to you. What's your reply to the president?

AHMADINEJAD: Well, President Bush is free to think as he pleases and to say what he pleases. I don't oppose the freedom of speech. I believe in freedom of speech. President Bush is free to say what he pleases. But these would not change the truth. So that President Bush knows the Iranian people are dearly loved today. We can very well put this to the test to find out who has become isolated. Again, maybe one of my friends could go to another country and a friend of President Bush could go to the same country, find out which one of us is isolated. You're free to choose any country you like. I don't think that President Bush has said these things. Rather, I prefer to think that this is your impression of what the president has said.

I know that there is nothing that 'President Tom' could say that would still the drums (dogs?) of war - and he makes some very good points in his interview about Israel and Iran's nuclear ambitions, all in the face of a rabid right-wing propagandist in the 'journalists' chair - but he is a master of the western media.

He opens himself to any question whatsoever with no restrictions and talks to the US media for hours on any subject with no qualifications, and in English! Hell, even Bush would never do that!

But his thoughts are very interesting and he makes some excellent and intelligent points. I like the handling of the (disgraceful and biased) pro-Bush line which was a masterpiece:

The whole interview is the reporter asking the following two questions:

"Do you support terrorist groups"

and

"Are you sending weapons to Iraq"

And he spends the whole time dancing around and not answering those two questions. It is pretty clear from the interview that (1) he is very honest, or else he would just say "no, I'm not doing those things", and (2) Iran is supporting terrorist groups in Iraq and elsewhere, and that Iranian supplied goods are being used to kill American troops.

Way to change the subject - you are the king of the non-sequitur. I repeat - the interview shows that Iran is arming insurgents and supporting terrorist groups (both in Iran and Lebanon), which means that we are at war with them already. This is a mini-cold war (us vs Iran) that has been going on for years.

The whole interview is the reporter asking the following two questions:

"Do you support terrorist groups"

and

"Are you sending weapons to Iraq"

And he spends the whole time dancing around and not answering those two questions. It is pretty clear from the interview that (1) he is very honest, or else he would just say "no, I'm not doing those things", and (2) Iran is supporting terrorist groups in Iraq and elsewhere, and that Iranian supplied goods are being used to kill American troops.

But maybe they cannot be answered.

I mean a 'terrorist group' is whatever the US decides to label one...could be anything. And of course the US is not the arbiter of what and what is not a terror group.

And there is also the issue that the US itself supports many 'terrorist groups' - even one's on its own lists, so it is meaningless.

Re the weapons to Iraq; of course he could deny this - if even if he WAS sending such weapons (and why not? Is there a rule that says everyone must support US illegal invasions?) then it would be done in such a way that he could legitimately deny it......like the US does actually when they use Blackwater etc...Bush can always deny.....so your theory cannot be correct.

He could easily deny it even if it was true.

Which brings up another point no winger has ever been able to answer; why is it wrong for an Iranian Shi'i State to support members of the Shi'i party who live in a country illegally invaded by the US?

What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad

Which brings up another point no winger has ever been able to answer; why is it wrong for an Iranian Shi'i State to support members of the Shi'i party who live in a country illegally invaded by the US?

It is not a matter of right or wrong, it is a matter of "are they at war with us or not". If we are trying to calm Iraq down while they are sending weapons to help kill our troops, why are we not allowed to invade Iran? They are at war with us.

You have posted plenty of "Iran is wonderful, they would never attack us, the US is the evil one" type of posts - this is a rebuke to all of those posts. Iran is attacking us, if they don't stop they we should invade them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by @_@ Artman

Two contemptuous liars? Two sock puppets? What's the difference?

I actually respect the Iranian president more than Bush in terms of honesty, but I don't see why he is sending weapons to Iraq, just seems stupid.

It is not a matter of right or wrong, it is a matter of "are they at war with us or not". If we are trying to calm Iraq down while they are sending weapons to help kill our troops, why are we not allowed to invade Iran? They are at war with us.

You have posted plenty of "Iran is wonderful, they would never attack us, the US is the evil one" type of posts - this is a rebuke to all of those posts. Iran is attacking us, if they don't stop they we should invade them.

Why are they necessarily attacking the US?

Perhaps the weapons - IF they are being supplied - are being used to defend Shi'ites from Wahabi Sunni attacks now the US has turned Iraq into a hellhole.

The US - and people like you - cannot see anything in anything other than a stereotypical US-centric way.

Personally I believe that Bush and co have always been hellbent on attacking Iran and Syria and as such my personal view is that it is unavoidable.

Given that, imo, the US should invade as soon as possible. As soon as they take a beating and this cancer is stopped the better. It is regrettable but it is the only way.

Hitler was never going to stop either.... the only thing was to let him play his cards. The only good thing is that there's always a Stalingrad and anything that hastens it is a good thing....cancers are bad and there is no silver lining. Cutting them out is horrible and painful but, unfortunately, unavoidable...

What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad